J’ACCUSE was the title of a book written by a patriotic German during World War One. It was published in 1915 in Switzerland. It was anonymous to protect the author’s life. He exposed the hypocrisy of the German leaders who called on their fellow citizens for patriotic solidarity for their act of illegal war.

After the Germans invaded Belgium without real motive, their soldiers were attacked by ordinary Belgian citizens — a populist revolt at the outrage. Germans then slaughtered the civilian population. Cardinal Mercier addressed the people at Christmas 1914 listing the many priests who were shot, the hundreds of civilians shot or burnt, included old people and children.

The German justification? The law of war!

Rubbish said, lawyer Richard Grelling (for he it was who wrote the book). Might does not make Right. THEFT is absolutely wrong.

The Belgian people were defending their homes and country against armed invaders who despised Belgian neutrality. It is two-faced hypocrisy for the Kaiser’s army to steal the Belgian homeland by brutal force. It is an evil act to kill those Belgians who said ‘No you don’t!’ On the contrary THEFT is quite understandable by universal values. Not just in Belgium but everywhere. Should William Tell be burnt for defending his Swiss home against Habsburg thieving fingers?

Grelling thus emphasized the primacy of moral law over rationalizations of force.

The first stage of this condemnation was theft. That was clear to cool heads on all sides, even Germans. Killing came next. The first failure of the Germans was to condemn their own invasion of Belgium.

The same arrogance applies today to Brussels. Those who say they are “in power” in Brussels try to make up universal rules. Brussels politocrats spout disinformation. They make up the rules as they go — to their own advantage.

The Brussels politburo has already lost the argument for universal values and truth. It may not have sunk into their skulls. They may try to ignore it. They may think that the “itch” of their bad conscience may go away with time. It is not a physical itch. And it won’t go away.

Example: what did they say about Brexit? Where was the theft?

On 24 June 2016, four EU presidents issued a statement about early UK referendum results. They had fallen on their ears a few short hours earlier. Here’s what they said:

“We now expect the United Kingdom government to give effect to this decision of the British people as soon as possible, however painful that process may be. Any delay would unnecessarily prolong uncertainty. We have rules to deal with this in an orderly way.”

Here’s what I wrote the same day repeating what I wrote two years earlier. The main problem was the earlier THEFT of European democracy. De Gaulle tried to expunge the lucid light of European democracy. Schuman and Europe’s Founding Fathers said the Councils, committees and parliament should all be OPEN to the public and elected on a European basis.

Then came the THEFT of Schuman’s honor as the Father of European Democracy. De Gaulle refused to recognize Robert Schuman’s office as President of the European Parliament on 19 March 1958. In other States Schuman was treated like a Head of State. Once Schuman died in 1963 and other leaders lost their democratic guts, the Commission and the Council become anti-democratic, closed door organizations.

De Gaulle forbade Adenauer, Jean Monnet, former French prime ministers and others to attend his funeral. Weak-kneed politicians acquiesced to the line of French Foreign Minister Couve de Murville and the Gaullists who wanted to destroy the Community system. Gaullists threatened, then boycotted the institutions like the Council and Parliament in the “Empty Chair” crisis. Europeans fought for their democratic rights, good French democrats leading them. De Gaulle lost that fight. After riots and national paralysis, a French referendum kicked him out in 1969. He was replaced as President of the Republic by Alain Poher, formerly Schuman’s chief of staff.

The flame of Democracy is still STOLEN. Politicians love meeting secretly. Light of open democracy, required by the treaties, is still shut out of the councils and committees. Brussels today is run by a neo-Gaullist politburo. It still has more in common to the politiburos of the Soviet system. Robert Schuman denounced these “People’s Democracies” as counterfeit democracies.

Their characteristics ?

They did not allow free and open, ideological debate in society — for example about Communist atheism vs Europe’s Judeo-Christian heritage. Today politicians spout the slogan of Islam as a “religion of peace“. That title belonged to Christianity until 2001. Then President George W Bush first misappropriated the term — believe it or not — after the jihadi attack on the NY Twin Towers, the Pentagon and Washington. Why? Islam means submission, surrender or subjection in Arabic, not peace The verb is directed to a god situated in Mecca called Allah, not the Judeo-Christian God. (Oxford Dictionary: islam, submission from aslama, resign oneself). Submission is what a Politburo wants too. All voters who disagree are called “populists”!

A Politburo rules. It refuses to justify its base ethical standards. No free worker agrees to the dictatorship of the workers. Nor do today’s free citizens agree to the “Democratic Deficit”.

The politburo members were the self-elected super-citizens. The means to attain this status as the elite was party membership. Today the Commission is controlled the same way, by party cronies. Only members holding specific party cards are admitted (totally contrary to the oath of office they make). Other voices are excluded as “popularism”. Ordinary citizens who usually have no party membership are excluded. They amount to 98 percent of the population!

In secret sessions, party apparatchiks decide what is good for the people.

Today all major decisions of the Brussels elite take place in secret. What do the treaties say? All meetings should be open to the public and the press. The USSR, DDR, North Korea and the European Council are prime examples of the same fake democracy. Great company!

And what happens when the people raise their voice in a referendum? What do the Brussels politocrats do then? Well, they simply go into their councils, close the doors and tell us if the Referendum was recognized by them or not!

What THEFT!

A few dozen super-citizens go into closed session and tell four hundred million democratic voters if they are right or wrong! And then they come out and tell whopping lies. You can, like the audience of Grelling’s book, decide for yourself what is morally right and wrong.

Let’s take an example and analyze it. It shows exactly what democrats are up against. Compare what the judges in British democracy say about referendums and what the so-called guardians of European democracy in Brussels opine.

First the timing. Within a couple of hours of the first results of the UK referendum being announced — before the final published result! — on 24 June 2016, FOUR presidents of the EU (Juncker, Tusk, Schulz and Rutte) issued an official Statement saying:

“We now expect the United Kingdom government to give effect to this decision of the British people as soon as possible, however painful that process may be. Any delay would unnecessarily prolong uncertainty. We have rules to deal with this in an orderly way….”

Weren’t they efficient? Weren’t they quick? Didn’t they also shoot from the mouth a little bit too fast? Weren’t they a bit rash? Weren’t they also WRONG?

In fact the UK referendum was advisory. It was totally out of order for anyone to pronounce on the matter — least of all, Brussels.

This was obviously going be a decision affecting the destiny of 500 million citizens. Some of the presidents had not slept much that night. It would be instructive to hear their arguments that led to the press release. Would it include: “Let’s get rid of the British while we can. They are always awkward about Democracy!” Why were the public and press video cameras excluded from their early morning deliberations? Were the Four above democracy? Were they higher than UK and ECJ judges?

For all democratic Europeans this Four Presidents’ Decree is an affront to the supposed impartiality of all four institutions (Commission, European Council, Council of Ministers and Parliament). It was also legally WRONG! Do they have an excuse? NO. The four institutions are stuffed with lawyers. Many were British lawyers, knowing their Constitution.

Meanwhile in the UK the slower, surer process of law exposed the Decree, for what it was. CONSTITUTIONAL THEFT!

The High Court in its judgement on Miller vs HMG paragraph 106 said:

‘… a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament unless very clear language to the contrary is used in the referendum legislation in question. No such language is used in the 2015 Referendum Act.’ The referendum imposed no mandatory action.

The UK Supreme Court in its judgement paragraphs 119 to 125 re-affirmed that the Referendum was advisory!

“(124) Thus the referendum of 2016 did not change the law in a way which would allow ministers to withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Union without legislation. (125) … because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. …(12th Report 2009-10, House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution). “

Did the four president apologize for their fierce folly? Not a word.

In Schuman’s real democracy European decisions must be agreed by governments, by regions, by duly elected economic and social committees and parliament. The UK referendum was simply reaffirming the major problem: Brussels can no longer be considered to be democratic, open, fair or just. The European Union, as distinct from the European Communities which UK citizens in 1975 approved by a large, legal referendum majority, is illegitimate. It had never been agreed by the people.

I accuse the Brussels politocrats of the THEFT of Schuman’s real democracy. They have substituted a fraud.

The origin, purpose and future of supranational and European Democracy

About: EURDEMOCRACY

Robert Schuman wrote a book, For Europe, incorporating some of his speeches explaining the principles of a new, more perfect form of democracy that would unite the existing European democracies in a supranational European Community. These comments here draw on that founding philosophy that united Europe's Allies and former enemies in a constructive new entity. Schuman said it would change world politics. It introduced, he said, a new stage in the history of civilization. More information on Schuman and democracy on www.schuman.info Reproduction is permitted freely provided no profit is made in the process, otherwise permission must be obtained. (c) Bron, D Price asserts his moral right to be considered the author. Information: dp@schuman.info
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.